Epigenetic reprogramming rewires transcription during the alternation of generations in Arabidopsis

  1. Michael Borg
  2. Ranjith K Papareddy
  3. Rodolphe Dombey
  4. Elin Axelsson
  5. Michael D Nodine
  6. David Twell
  7. Frédéric Berger  Is a corresponding author
  1. Gregor Mendel Institute, Austria
  2. University of Leicester, United Kingdom

Abstract

Alternation between morphologically distinct haploid and diploid life forms is a defining feature of most plant and algal life cycles, yet the underlying molecular mechanisms that govern these transitions remain unclear. Here, we explore the dynamic relationship between chromatin accessibility and epigenetic modifications during life form transitions in Arabidopsis. The diploid-to-haploid life form transition is governed by the loss of H3K9me2 and DNA demethylation of transposon-associated cis-regulatory elements. This event is associated with dramatic changes in chromatin accessibility and transcriptional reprogramming. In contrast, the global loss of H3K27me3 in the haploid form shapes a chromatin accessibility landscape that is poised to re-initiate the transition back to diploid life after fertilization. Hence, distinct epigenetic reprogramming events rewire transcription through major reorganization of the regulatory epigenome to guide the alternation of generations in flowering plants.

Data availability

Deep-sequencing data that support the findings of this study have been deposited in the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) under accession code GSE155369. Re-analysis of previously published DNA methylomes from dme-2/+ pollen (Ibarra et al., 2012), and siRNAs from leaves (Papareddy et al., 2020) and pollen (Borges et al., 2018; Slotkin et al., 2009) were deposited in the GEO under accession code GSE155369.

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Michael Borg

    Gregor Mendel Institute, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3982-3843
  2. Ranjith K Papareddy

    Gregor Mendel Institute, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Rodolphe Dombey

    Gregor Mendel Institute, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3670-4128
  4. Elin Axelsson

    Gregor Mendel Institute, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4382-1880
  5. Michael D Nodine

    Gregor Mendel Institute, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. David Twell

    Department of Genetics, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Frédéric Berger

    Gregor Mendel Institute, Vienna, Austria
    For correspondence
    Frederic.berger@gmi.oeaw.ac.at
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3609-8260

Funding

Austrian Science Fund (P26887)

  • Frédéric Berger

Austrian Science Fund (I 4258)

  • Frédéric Berger

Austrian Science Fund (I2163-B16)

  • Frédéric Berger

Austrian Science Fund (M1818)

  • Michael Borg

European Commission (ERC 637888)

  • Michael D Nodine

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/I011269/1)

  • David Twell

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/N005090)

  • David Twell

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2021, Borg et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 6,107
    views
  • 893
    downloads
  • 67
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Michael Borg
  2. Ranjith K Papareddy
  3. Rodolphe Dombey
  4. Elin Axelsson
  5. Michael D Nodine
  6. David Twell
  7. Frédéric Berger
(2021)
Epigenetic reprogramming rewires transcription during the alternation of generations in Arabidopsis
eLife 10:e61894.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61894

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61894

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Developmental Biology
    Augusto Berrocal, Nicholas C Lammers ... Michael B Eisen
    Research Advance

    Transcription often occurs in bursts as gene promoters switch stochastically between active and inactive states. Enhancers can dictate transcriptional activity in animal development through the modulation of burst frequency, duration, or amplitude. Previous studies observed that different enhancers can achieve a wide range of transcriptional outputs through the same strategies of bursting control. For example, in Berrocal et al., 2020, we showed that despite responding to different transcription factors, all even-skipped enhancers increase transcription by upregulating burst frequency and amplitude while burst duration remains largely constant. These shared bursting strategies suggest that a unified molecular mechanism constraints how enhancers modulate transcriptional output. Alternatively, different enhancers could have converged on the same bursting control strategy because of natural selection favoring one of these particular strategies. To distinguish between these two scenarios, we compared transcriptional bursting between endogenous and ectopic gene expression patterns. Because enhancers act under different regulatory inputs in ectopic patterns, dissimilar bursting control strategies between endogenous and ectopic patterns would suggest that enhancers adapted their bursting strategies to their trans-regulatory environment. Here, we generated ectopic even-skipped transcription patterns in fruit fly embryos and discovered that bursting strategies remain consistent in endogenous and ectopic even-skipped expression. These results provide evidence for a unified molecular mechanism shaping even-skipped bursting strategies and serve as a starting point to uncover the realm of strategies employed by other enhancers.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Ignacy Czajewski, Bijayalaxmi Swain ... Daan MF van Aalten
    Research Article Updated

    O-GlcNAcylation is an essential intracellular protein modification mediated by O-GlcNAc transferase (OGT) and O-GlcNAcase (OGA). Recently, missense mutations in OGT have been linked to intellectual disability, indicating that this modification is important for the development and functioning of the nervous system. However, the processes that are most sensitive to perturbations in O-GlcNAcylation remain to be identified. Here, we uncover quantifiable phenotypes in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster carrying a patient-derived OGT mutation in the catalytic domain. Hypo-O-GlcNAcylation leads to defects in synaptogenesis and reduced sleep stability. Both these phenotypes can be partially rescued by genetically or chemically targeting OGA, suggesting that a balance of OGT/OGA activity is required for normal neuronal development and function.